I'm not disproving anything, I'm merely pointing out that predictions are impossible without causation. Correlation does not imply causation.Originally Posted by domr
I'm not disproving anything, I'm merely pointing out that predictions are impossible without causation. Correlation does not imply causation.
i dont predict anything, you said it yourself. what I actually do is "dqwerfwegtA" but it seems to work so Im content
You're right, you don't predict anything. You're just thinking that because something has happened in the past, it will happen again in the future. Ahahahahaha. Your only hope is that things will stay the same and won't change, forever.
its okay I always hedge on the worst possible outcome so if Im disappointed its always for the better
No, you really are not good at trying to apply this model deductively, are you? The reason comes from the model, not from the observation - this of course requires that you type the Te ego and the Te PoLR prior to the conflict in the interaction, and preferably not simply typing them based on this one single interaction, or if you do the latter (typing them in this interaction), you should still have more reasons to type them Te ego and Te PoLR other than just seeing them conflicting. Have to have reasons more specific to the typing than just them conflicting. If you do not have any independent reasons then it's just circular logic.
Right, it was never observed before that this Te ego person and this Te PoLR person consistently conflict over time. This is what will be predicted here.A prediction implies predicting something that has never been observed before.
I'm not English but afaik "due to" means the same as "cause". You are trying to say that it's important to specify that X is required for Y to happen.Causality is X will cause Y to happen. "Y will happen due to X reason" is not causality, and hence not a prediction. Y could happen due to X or Z or A or B or C. It could be anything other than X. We haven't established a causality, as in X will cause Y. And hence that's why it's not a prediction.
Can you say what is this loaded meaning of "causation", please let me know.
And yeah he's really quixotic lol
PS: Causal-determinist are ILE/LSI/SEE/EII supposedly. Not the alpha quadra NTs. I don't really buy Gulenko on all this, but C-D does happen to fit me as an LSI btw
Yah @Singu please make your own thread instead of this
EDIT: A summary of the whole farce that's been going on here for weeks or months.
So basically. Singu has been reading up on the scientific method, that's commendable, but he hasn't quite put it all together yet and is unable to apply it on Socionics's model either so that's why he gets upset and then assumes everyone else has the same problem he does and then tries to educate everyone of his scrambled understanding with which he's trying hard to reject the entire model, as the solutionD lol...
I mean, if he at least had the self-awareness to admit that he hasn't put it all together yet, it'd be okay. But the attitude he's displayed regarding that is just no good.
EDIT: A summary of the whole farce that's been going on here for weeks or months.
So basically. Singu has been reading up on the scientific method, that's commendable, but he hasn't quite put it all together yet and is unable to apply it on Socionics's model either so that's why he gets upset and then assumes everyone else has the same problem he does and then tries to educate everyone of his scrambled understanding with which he's trying hard to reject the entire model, as the solution
I mean, if he at least had the self-awareness to admit that he hasn't put it all together yet, it'd be okay. But the attitude he's displayed regarding that is just no good.
come and save us, Myst
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
causation as gatekeeper to recognize one event leading to the other can be structured in many ways, but ultimately what ends up happening is "causation" is a priori limited to certain dimensions and anything that doesn't fit within them is thrown out as inadmissbible. so like two events can clearly be connected but depending on how you conceptualize causation you can or cannot "say" whether one event caused the other. this has consequences when you're trying to establish the validity of relationships between things, and its basically a Ti way to exclude Fi. For example, two men are hunting with shotguns, they both shoot at the same bird, neither hit the bird and another hunter nearby gets pellets in his eye. both hunters say the other one is responsible. strict C-D says under those limited circumstances it cannot be shown who is to blame, (assuming there is no tracing the pellets to the guns etc), therefore since neither man "caused" the other person's injury neither can be held responsible, inasmuch as proven causation is a requirement to hold them liable. Fi-Te on the other hand says hold them both responsible because it "gets the job done" and promotes one ratting on the other, or one confessing in order to spare his friend. The first form of causation, or lackthereof, is a purely static take on the issue, the later a form of dynamic thinking. the former is "rule bound" in the Ti sense, the later is "ethically bound"--the feeling of redressing the victim's injury supercedes the requirement of causality in the mind of the Fi person. you might say it relocates the causal nexus away from proving the guilt of the shooters and onto ensuring the victim is redressed. this is a "shift in premise" that is at the core of Fi v Ti and shows how causation and connection can be two different things. also how causation is not a metaphysical truth, but a subjectively defined and set bar for action on the basis of a perceived connection. when the bar is set on the basis of natural observations we have empiricism, but when the bar is artificial we have what amounts to bureaucracy
That's just correlation, not causation. "A Liberal and a Republican will conflict, because they have conflicted before" is correlation and not causation. The cause is something like "they conflicted, because they disagreed with the values they held about gun-control". It has nothing to do with the fact that they were a Liberal or a Republican. It's entirely possible for a Liberal and a Republican to not conflict, or they may conflict for reasons other than the fact that they're a Liberal and a Republican. The cause has 100% to do with something, an objective cause, and not a subjective categorization like "Liberal/Republican".
Again, you are confusing "consistently conflict over time" with causality. It was observed before (although in different persons) that Te ego and Te PoLR were conflicting, and hence you already know that they "consistently conflict over time". It's just another way of saying "they were conflicting before, so they will conflict again in the future". That's inductivism, not causality.
Last edited by Singu; 06-10-2018 at 03:32 PM.
singu is poster child for dynamic feeling preference over dynamic thinking
the dynamic feeling is structured by Ti, so its easy to mistake it for dynamic thinking, until you realize in substance he finds dynamic thinking inherently unpersuasive, and that is the substance of all his "thinking", and by this I mean dynamic feeling communications, the thinking function is inferior to feeling one and therefore essentially negative. its essentially a lot of noise over some relatively straightforward static axioms and their consequences. usually slogans like correlation =/ causation. oversimple either/ors like induction v deduction, stuff to that effect
negative thinking is pure analytic thinking when dominant (this would be LII)
positive thinking in the dominant position is synthetic for its own sake (this is LSI)
when thinking is subordinate to any function, whether it be feeling or sensation or intuition it is also negative but synthetic in service of the dominant function. this can take the form of "analysis" but it is not pure analysis it is targetted in service of the dominant function, i.e.: a form of cleverly disguised form of synthetic thinking. this is not to say synthetic thinking of this kind is invalid, especially when strong, just that it serves something other than thinking for its own sake (imagine ILE or SLI, to describe intuition or to promote positive sensory states--LSI subordinates the senses to thinking, SLI uses thinking in service of sensory states--hence different philosophies as to the proper role and purpose of the law, for example)
back to singu--he seems to be essentially operating on an intuition about how socionics will effect group feeling, namely to its ultimate and persistent detriment, this seems to be the source of his crusade which thinking is in turn used in service of. the beta quadra thing is more about subordinating the place to the time hence why to point out that he spoils the mood on these forums tends to be of no moment, because his perception and concern is more global. this is the main difference between the ethics of alpha and beta. it illustrates the primitive and archaic nature of Te in both quadra, the kind of either/or in space/time that they are both kind of legendary for in the experience of Te valuers. like working for an ESE for example, ugh
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-10-2018 at 03:08 PM.
lol, I'm explaining it in a very simple and understandable way, really.
How is:
"A Liberal and a Republican will conflict, because they have conflicted before"
different than:
"A Te ego will conflict with a Te PoLR, because they have conflicted before"?
They're not different, and neither are the causes of the conflict. They're both correlation, and not causation. Also, both are inductivism, as in "it has happened before, so it will happen again in the future", and not causality.
If you still don't get this, then you have the logic and the understanding of a child.
Says the guy who doesn't understand causality, and says stuff like "causation don't matter".
Last edited by Singu; 06-10-2018 at 03:39 PM.
By the way, I'm not saying that causation is true or certain. It's not.
I could say that "an apple will fall to the ground, due to the Newton's theory of gravity". And I could drop an apple every single time, and I could even calculate in the exact speed that it would be predicted to fall, and I would get it correct every single time. And yet I would never be certain that this causation is true. It just means that I've never been proven to be wrong. I've merely assumed that there would be this causation.
And besides, Newton's theory is wrong.
there's a difference between conflict and extinguishment which gulenko goes into, people just use conflict colloquially because they don't have aspergers like squark
@squark Either way, we'll need to establish causation, if we want to say stuff like "Te PoLR will conflict with Te ego". There's nothing wrong with correlation per se, just like with statistics, as long as we're careful to keep mentioning that correlation does not imply causation. And so Socionics is correlation and not causation.
No matter what we think about it, every categorizations are going to be subjective. The Liberal/Republic categorization is a subjective categorization, and so is ISTp/ENFp etc. And we can't find objective causes from subjective categorizations, because objectivity implies something that goes beyond the scope of what its describing. So the real cause of conflict has nothing to do with the fact that they're a Liberal/Republican or an ISTp/ENFp.
So is saying stuff like "people will conflict, if they insult each other" an objective cause? Not necessarily, because it depends. So you'll need to keep narrowing it down, like "people will conflict, if they insult each other... unless... and not... etc.". And if you keep narrowing it down, then you might find an objective cause, which must imply that it's all biologically, neurologically, psychologically and sociologically consistent with each other. Because objectivity implies it goes beyond its mere subjective categorizations.
Was your last sentence drawing on Socionics sources or not? Let me know. Pure curiosity.
As for the rest... interesting in any case.
its like going to the DMV and them saying you can't update you license unless you have 6 forms of ID. the causation is entirely artificial
whereas if it were observed that certain natural phenomenon only occur when there are 6 neutrons that would be empirical
what happens is people conflate the two and create a bureaucracy out of "science" essentially: this is scientism. you have this kind of intellectual gatekeeping in the universities at varying levels, usually coming from the humanities and administrators (you see this in many, though not all, especially amateur, "science populizers"), because real scientists are by definition not scientismists
OK so your answer is "no", that is, you were not drawing on Socionics sources, were you? Let me know please.
are you asking for a link to someone else saying essentially the same thing?
Blah blah, not enough intellect, not anything new, boring.
@Bertrand Why do you think that what you're saying is not a priori? Why would you think that Socionics is not mere subjective projections of a priori expectations onto the outside world? If you define "objective" as being "what is observed" and "what is outside of myself", then under that criteria nothing would be objective, because your neurons are inside of yourself, and your own thoughts are inside of yourself, and therefore everything is subjective, and hence you can't objectively study your own self. So under this criteria and philosophy, nothing is objective and it collapses on itself and it becomes self-refuting. This is basically Logical Positivism.
So it really is ironic, since all of your Socionics categorizations are subjective and are expected observations.
im not saying it isn't in some sense grounded in a priori thinking structures, im saying you fit neatly within them. your rejoinder is literally "its all subjective" and yet you won't shut up as if you found the master key to everything without realizing it also makes anything you say equally invalid. the point is not valid/invalid, its by any metric the aforementioned framework is superior to the nothing you offer in its place, or the imagined scenario of "science" in the abstract, or brought in its perfected form from the future into the present in the form of pure sleight of hand. its the same argument sam harris makes: "in principle science knows all, and is perfect, and that is sufficient reason to reject anything today that is less than perfect judged against this imagined future ideal--aha!" its the age old rationalization of perfect being the enemy of good, in unironic advocacy of a perfect nothing in favor of good something. typical IEI dreaming backed by a form of intellectual question begging across the time axis. you've transcended the time axis in making your argument without realizing how foolish this makes you when applied to actual endeavors and not a kind of spiritual hope. its like Jesus came down and said the kingdom of earth is on earth all we need to do is believe in it to make it happen. its like what you don't realize is its the exact same thinking that ESE makes in much simpler form: if we just are all universally nice to eachother to the greatest possible degree in a kind of persistent omni present, then we don't need to worry about better/worse: it takes care of itself!.. its like what you both fail to realize is your ethical schemes are inherently naive as hell and dangerous when implemented, precisely for the same reason you offer in the form of it pertaining to yourself. there's nothing that makes science a better master of humanity and especially not on the way to its perfect form. in essence your ethical "theory" is grounded in way too much static logic. you will inevitably have to resort to stalinistic "break a few eggs" rationale to make it happen, and you act like no ones ever tried before. whats to stop us from throwing your bitch ass up on the cross first? maybe we'll grind you down to soylent when the system fails to produce. will you be one of those prisoners in the gulag still talking about how great the Party is and advising all your children to obey, while allthewhile rotting in a freezing shithole? maybe you would! Solzhenitsyn has shown us these people do in fact exist
It's not a priori in "some sense", it's all a priori. You can't escape from this fact. The fact that you think you're somehow different is due to the doctrine of your own philosophy.
Of course, the reason why you think this way is because you think that "what is observed is objective" and "what is outside of myself is objective". But this forgets the fact that there are a priori expectations in every observations. You think the separation between what is subjective/objective is what is inside of yourself/outside of yourself. But that's not objective at all, since what's inside of you also exist objectively. This is the doctrine of Jungianism, which is basically based on empiricism.
Nah this is just strawman, and this is not what I've been saying at all.
Again, an ironic projection of your own subjectivity and the result of subjective categorizations and its consequent subjective expectations of observations.
What in her post was aspergers-like? I don't see it.
The underlined is EXACTLY what model A is talking about, you idiot.
Regardless of whether the model has anything valid in it or not or how much of it is valid if some of it is valid, it's still a model that's to be utilized deductively and is falsifiable too, etc.
Nah, you are the one who confuses this hopelessly here. You simply do not have the brain capacity to process what I said about how it's not simply inductivism.Again, you are confusing "consistently conflict over time" with causality. It was observed before (although in different persons) that Te ego and Te PoLR were conflicting, and hence you already know that they "consistently conflict over time". It's just another way of saying "they were conflicting before, so they will conflict again in the future". That's inductivism, not causality.
Why do you have the need to point it out that Newton's theory is wrong, since you already indicated you are aware no theories are entirely correct??
So you've just called science subjective. As per the bolded. Alright.
And you expected Socioncis's model to give all these "UNLESS", "AND NOT", etc to you. NO, no one here in their right mind expects one single model to give all that about people. When will you understand that?So is saying stuff like "people will conflict, if they insult each other" an objective cause? Not necessarily, because it depends. So you'll need to keep narrowing it down, like "people will conflict, if they insult each other... unless... and not... etc.". And if you keep narrowing it down, then you might find an objective cause, which must imply that it's all biologically, neurologically, psychologically and sociologically consistent with each other. Because objectivity implies it goes beyond its mere subjective categorizations.
naw this is totally not just a strawman and totally what you've been saying all along. its also totally derp and you continually repackage it as if it isn't essentially all emanating from the same flawed premise. thank god youll never be in charge of anything. perhaps you can find someone to privately peddle infinite dreams to, but your logic is not crowned with success. your persistent delusion is, however, a sincere marvel. i honestly wonder why god packaged brains in your configuration, and I think it has to do with someone really needs these sorts of amusements, lest you be genuine human cast off
OK it's official proof now that you are trolling. There is NO way in hell that anyone in their right mind accidentally contradicts themselves this blatantly. You kept claiming that Socionics is just inductive observations, now suddenly your problem is that Socionics is "a priori expectations".
I will never respond again to another trolly post of yours in this topic.
He's just trolling.
No I was just asking a yes/no question.
yes domr alluded to this earlier when he said he essentially wanted it both ways, its not so much that he does this intentionally, but rather that he's defined it out of existence as a consequence of his axioms, but has fooled himself into thinking this is not what he has done and its totally a result of a fair and logical process. in other words, he thinks because the logic connecting a->b and x->y is sound he is free to ignore that a and x cannot rationally co-exist over time, thus to reject socionics on the basis of them involves selectively admitting them, as we see here. I feel like this is normal for IEI who plays with time; the difficulty with singu is he thinks he's being rational, when he's really a hysterical child
maybe
Wow, and you fail to see that all observations are a priori expectations.
I get the feeling that Myst is not exactly good at logic.
Well have fun with your subjective Socionics categorizations. Keep in mind that how I or others act have nothing to do with your subjective expectations of observations.
yes im sure internally its all spagetti, but I got the general outline well enough to act in an effective mannerWell have fun with your subjective Socionics categorizations. Keep in mind that how I or others act have nothing to do with your subjective expectations of observations.
you're sort of like prince myshkin if he was a little asshole all the time, but I concede that internally your world is probably amazing, and perhaps even a reward for good deeds in the past life. kind of like a continual drug trip, and I say that with admiration, but you must respect that very few people live in that world, and it should not be the basis for policy
If you don't know why I'm saying something, it's probably a better option not to assume anything. You can also just ask me.
hurr
So all observations and Socionics model is deductive.... when your issue was that observations are inductive, and so then Socionics is not deductive but goes ahead just from observation without justification for the prediction. Okay.
Please, carry on. With your trolling.
Last edited by Myst; 06-10-2018 at 10:14 PM.
I'm not trolling.
And why would observations be deductive, just because all observations are essentially subjective?
So let's get what deductive means, it goes something like this:
"If X happens, then Y will happen".
Inductive means something like this:
"We observe X, therefore X will happen again the future".
I've already said this before.
--
BOTH are subjective. We're not denying that. But which approach makes more sense?
"If X happens, then Y will happen".
(This says, "I SUBJECTIVELY think that this is going to happen")
"We observe X, therefore X will happen again the future".
(This says, "I SUBJECTIVELY observe something, which I SUBJECTIVELY think that it will repeat in the future")
Well, at least the top approach can create new knowledge and new information. While the bottom approach can NEVER create anything new that was not observed before. This is a problem, since predictions don't necessarily repeat itself from the past. Another problem is that a lot of things are actually unobservable. Like explanations for one, are unobservable. That's because explanations are conjectured. You can't observe conjectures.
So since they're conjectures, you can cook up any crazy things. You can say, "If person A and person B meets, then they will explode". And how can you explain that? Well you can't! That makes no sense, and it's totally crazy. So that's just a bad hypothesis, and we know it, so we won't even need to bother testing it.
But I think the induction approach is even more crazy. It goes like, "We observe person A and person B meeting. We have observed that they fought. Therefore, they will fight again in the future". And it's just like wut?
(Another obvious absurdity of this is that which part did they observe? Did they miss all the part where they were not fighting, because they expected them to fight?)
Anyway, I would just recommend reading Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations". I could send you the ebook, if you want.
Last edited by Singu; 06-11-2018 at 02:39 AM.
Exactly. That's what "a priori expectation" means. When X happens, we expect Y will happen.
WHERE is the "a priori expectation" in this??Inductive means something like this:
"We observe X, therefore X will happen again the future".
I've already said this before.
No it's simpler than that. These examples you've been giving about induction are flat-out wrong, unrealistic, you don't use induction like this in reality. You want to separate out irrelevant conditions when making inductive conclusions.So since they're conjectures, you can cook up any crazy things. You can say, "If person A and person B meets, then they will explode". And how can you explain that? Well you can't! That makes no sense, and it's totally crazy. So that's just a bad hypothesis, and we know it, so we won't even need to bother testing it.
But I think the induction approach is even more crazy. It goes like, "We observe person A and person B meeting. We have observed that they fought. Therefore, they will fight again in the future". And it's just like wut?
(Another obvious absurdity of this is that which part did they observe? Did they miss all the part where they were not fighting, because they expected them to fight?)
Oh so that book is what you are reciting when saying all this stuff.Anyway, I would just recommend reading Karl Popper's "Conjectures and Refutations". I could send you the ebook, if you want.
I'm not really a Popperian per se I guess tho' I agree with some of his ideas.
Well you can say that the inductive approach is Socionics.
And before you say that ITR is deductive... think about it. The entire Model A is based around the premise of ITR (e.g. "dual seeking function" "valued" "unvalued" etc.). It was not possible to create Model A without observing the ITR or the premise of ITR (and if so, did Augusta randomly label some functions "valued", "unvalued", "dual seeking"? Why? That makes no sense. "More faithful to Jung" also makes no sense, and Jung is also based on observations). It's obvious that Socionics was built around the observation of interactions between people. So ITR is based on observations. And also the repetition of previous observations.
That's the entire criticism of induction. It's not possible to make an observation without having some sort of an expectation first. So essentially, everything is deductive, or everything is conjectural or theoretical.
See above. In reality, you don't really use induction at all. You already have expectations.
Yes, that's what the book is saying. And that's how scientists actually work. So if you think that this is all wrong, then you are making some pretty big claim. And if you're going to say "that's wrong that's not how it works blah blah blah", then read the damn book, or do actual science first. COME UP WITH A HYPOTHESIS. Try to inductively create a hypothesis.
Then what exactly is your problem with Socionics?
No. Scientists aren't all 100% Popperian.And that's how scientists actually work.
I'm saying your reasonings about how Socionics is wrong are wrong.So if you think that this is all wrong, then you are making some pretty big claim.
Should I send you my MA thesis paper in cognitive neuroscience? I did it recently. It did involve the use of hypotheses along with an experiment to check them. (You'll just have to translate it with google translate first though.)And if you're going to say "that's wrong that's not how it works blah blah blah", then read the damn book, or do actual science first. COME UP WITH A HYPOTHESIS. Try to inductively create a hypothesis.
It obviously tries to derive things from observations.
But you don't know what "Popperian" means or stands for.
How did you inductively come up with a hypothesis?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
